The High Court has upheld a procurement watchdog’s decision requiring KenGen to independently verify disputed manufacturer authorisation documents before proceeding with a Sh106.8 million compressor tender.
The court dismissed Comprehensive Development Limited’s case against the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board’s (PPARB) July 14, 2026 decision, allowing the checks to continue.
“The respondent (PPARB) acted within the statutory mandate … when it directed the procuring entity to undertake further due diligence. The direction was connected to the verification requirements under TR2 and TR4 of the Tender Document and did not, in itself, introduce a new evaluation criterion or determine the outcome of the procurement,” the court said.
The dispute centred on a tender floated early this year by KenGen for supply of spares and technical support services for Comp Air compressors for geothermal power plants under a three-year framework contract.
Four bidders submitted offers when the tender closed on April 23, 2026. Comprehensive Development emerged as the successful bidder at an estimated Sh106.8 million.
Finton Logistics, one of the unsuccessful bidders, challenged the intended award before PPARB on June 24, arguing that the rival had not been shown to possess authority to issue manufacturer-backed warranties or authorisations.
Finton questioned whether documents submitted by Comprehensive were issued by an authorised entity. They included a Certificate of Warranty and Manufacturer’s Authorisation Form issued by Jiangmen Hongze Environmental Protection Co. Ltd.
But Comprehensive maintained that it had met requirements and that KenGen had verified the documents.
PPARB found Comprehensive technically responsive, but held that KenGen’s due diligence had not conclusively settled Jiangmen Hongze’s authority. It directed KenGen to conduct fresh and more comprehensive checks.
Tender documents required a warranty certificate on the manufacturer’s letterhead. They also demanded a signed manufacturer’s authorisation, or proof that the bidder was a manufacturer, authenticated agent, dealership or OEM-authorised dealer.
Finton also relied on correspondence linked to the Gardner Denver and Ingersoll Rand manufacturer structure, saying it cast doubt on whether Jiangmen Hongze’s authority covered the products and project.
It further said KenGen’s due diligence was inadequate because it had sought confirmation from Jiangmen Hongze itself, describing the exercise as “self-authentication”. It wanted the award annulled.
But Comprehensive maintained that it had met both requirements and that KenGen had verified the documents. It argued that the Board exceeded its powers by ordering another inquiry and introduced an undisclosed requirement for original-manufacturer confirmation.
PPARB found Comprehensive technically responsive, but held that KenGen’s due diligence under Section 83 of the procurement law had not conclusively settled Jiangmen Hongze’s authority.
It directed KenGen to conduct fresh and more comprehensive checks, including verification from the manufacturer or another authoritative source, before continuing with the tender.
The Board rejected Comprehensive’s bid to strike out the case over alleged misuse of confidential procurement information, finding no evidence of unlawful access.
KenGen defended its evaluation but did not oppose the additional checks. Its Accounting Officer said the exercise was neither onerous nor prejudicial because the documents’ authenticity and enforceability needed to be established.
Finton supported the decision, saying the evidence raised questions over Jiangmen Hongze’s authority.
The court held that the Board had not disqualified Comprehensive, declared Jiangmen Hongze unauthorised or awarded the tender to Finton.
It said the Board had not found Jiangmen Hongze unauthorised, disqualified Comprehensive or awarded the tender to Finton.
“Rather, it directed first and second Interested Parties (KenGEN and its accounting officer) to undertake further verification of that outstanding question before proceeding with the procurement,” the court said.
It held that Section 173(b) of the Act empowered the Board to direct that something be “done or redone” in procurement proceedings. The power could not, however, impose new qualifications or rewrite tender rules.
“Due diligence cannot be used as a device to introduce a new evaluation criterion,” the court said, adding that it verifies compliance with requirements already disclosed.
It found that the Board was checking an existing requirement, not creating a new one. Comprehensive had relied on Jiangmen Hongze as an authenticated agent, making its actual authority relevant to the documents supporting compliance.
The court found no illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness or excess of jurisdiction.
